THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3,, SRINAGAR vs. M/S JYOTI LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

148 of the Act was issued on 21.03.2013 for the reason escapement of income. The assessee, vide letter dated 25.03.2013, in response to the said notice, the assessee filed a revised return and the rent received was offered to tax as ‘income from house property’, as per I.T.A. No.612/Asr/2017 6 Assessment Year: 2014-15 the provisions of sections 22 r.w.s

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

148 of the Act for specific issue of Rs. 37,30,000/- cash deposited in bank account with SBI, Mini Secretariat Branch, Hoshiarpur. 4. That even otherwise also original order passed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 19.11.2019 which has been sought to be revised by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax was a nullity in the eyes

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

148 of the Act for specific issue of Rs. 37,30,000/- cash deposited in bank account with SBI, Mini Secretariat Branch, Hoshiarpur. 4. That even otherwise also original order passed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 19.11.2019 which has been sought to be revised by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax was a nullity in the eyes

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

148 of the Act for specific issue of Rs. 37,30,000/- cash deposited in bank account with SBI, Mini Secretariat Branch, Hoshiarpur. 4. That even otherwise also original order passed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 19.11.2019 which has been sought to be revised by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax was a nullity in the eyes

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1. That the order passed by CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case. 2. That ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held that Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared before AO in the penalty proceedings but not mentioned about the sale of property at which the appellant residing earlier because AR has never been appeared before

SHRI HARBANS SINGH MANN,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (4), MANSA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11

property with the family members. The assessee received the amount through bank draft and through cash. Both the amount was deposited in bank account. The assessee relied on the copy of the agreement. But the purchaser denied the said agreement as it is I.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11 own document of assessee. So, the ld. AO has treated

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

148 and case was reopened. Thereafter, the assessment was completed with addition amount of Rs.1,61,43,719/- and Rs.4,29,431/- which works out total amount of Rs.1,75,73,150/- related to deposit in bank from unexplained source. The addition was framed u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

148, the assessee declared additional income from other sources for Rs.76,974/- and the same was claimed to be an error and on account of lack of knowledge. The Ld. AO accepted the returned income as well as deduction claim under Chapter VIA but initiated as well imposed impugned penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

148, the assessee declared additional income from other sources for Rs.76,974/- and the same was claimed to be an error and on account of lack of knowledge. The Ld. AO accepted the returned income as well as deduction claim under Chapter VIA but initiated as well imposed impugned penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were

HIMANI GOYA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

148, the assessee declared additional income from other sources for Rs.76,974/- and the same was claimed to be an error and on account of lack of knowledge. The Ld. AO accepted the returned income as well as deduction claim under Chapter VIA but initiated as well imposed impugned penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

148, the assessee declared additional income from other sources for Rs.76,974/- and the same was claimed to be an error and on account of lack of knowledge. The Ld. AO accepted the returned income as well as deduction claim under Chapter VIA but initiated as well imposed impugned penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

148, the assessee declared additional income from other sources for Rs.76,974/- and the same was claimed to be an error and on account of lack of knowledge. The Ld. AO accepted the returned income as well as deduction claim under Chapter VIA but initiated as well imposed impugned penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were

SH. SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL,,MUKTSAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BATHINDA

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 411/Asr/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal Dcit-Circle-Ii बनाम/ Vs. S/O Parkash Singh Badal Bhatinda. Vpo Badal, District Muktsar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abspb-1568-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal Ms. Muskan Garg (Cas) –Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 which is void ab intio. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 11,98,230/- out of total addition of Rs.21,50,000/- made by the Id. Assessing Officer by treating the said amount

SHRI SUKHEV SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

148 was not served upon the assessee. So, the re- assessment is liable to be quashed. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, as the learned AO has not considered the relevant documents supplied during the course of assessment proceedings. So, the re-opening as well as re- assessment is liable

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 54F was withdrawn and the total sale amount of Rs.33 lacs was added back with the total income of the assessee. Further, the grievance of the assessee was that the case was reopened u/s 148 pursuing the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08 on the year the property was transferred. But the addition would

SHRIMATI RITU KAPOOR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III(2), SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1. That the order under appeal is against law and facts of the case. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not accepting the submission of the appellant that the assessment is vitiated in law as the notice under Section 148 is alleged to have been issued

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act) . After a search operation u/s 132 of the Act 1961 carried out on 29th

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act) . After a search operation u/s 132 of the Act 1961 carried out on 29th